NETOBSERV-1379: enhance DNS debugging to dbg DNS over TCP with NA fields

[msherif1234]

Description

it was noticed with DNS over TCP that the handshake packets are too small and it doesn't contain any DNS data from UI DNS fields showed as n/a which is true

this PR propagate the DNS lookup return code so we can differentiate between cases like TCP handshake case and real errors enriching with DNS info.

when we get N/A bpf_skb_load_bytes() return an error

working
======
 "dns_record": {
                        "id": 40514,
                        "flags": 34176,
                        "latency": 185794,
                        "errno": 0,
                        "offset": 68,
                        "tcp_len": 34,
                        "skb_len": 291
                    },

none working
==========
 "dns_record": {
                        "id": 0,
                        "flags": 0,
                        "latency": 0,
                        "errno": 7,
                        "offset": 68,
                        "tcp_len": 34,
                        "skb_len": 66
                    },

in the none working case the received packet is very small that is why we can't fetch DNS header info.

Those small packets are TCP handshake and those packets don't have data by definition this clear when u look at the pcap

Dependencies

netobserv/network-observability-console-plugin#425
netobserv/flowlogs-pipeline#533

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

• Will this change affect NetObserv / Network Observability operator? If not, you can ignore the rest of this checklist.
• Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
• Does this PR require product documentation?
  • If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
• Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
  • If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
• Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
  • If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
• QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
  • Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
  • Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
  • No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

[msherif1234]

/ok-to-test

[github-actions]

New image:
quay.io/netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent:0fd928e

It will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=0fd928e make set-agent-image

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 3 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (0891b34) 31.79% compared to head (d66c036) 31.84%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #218      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   31.79%   31.84%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          37       37              
  Lines        3362     3369       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits         1069     1073       +4     
- Misses       2230     2232       +2     
- Partials       63       64       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	31.84% <57.14%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files	Coverage Δ
pkg/decode/decode_protobuf.go	29.59% <100.00%> (+0.44%)	⬆️
pkg/exporter/proto.go	95.27% <100.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️
pkg/flow/record.go	55.22% <0.00%> (-2.59%)	⬇️

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[msherif1234]

/ok-to-test

[github-actions]

New image:
quay.io/netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent:a7e6749

It will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=a7e6749 make set-agent-image

[msherif1234]

/ok-to-test

[msherif1234]

/ok-to-test

[github-actions]

New image:
quay.io/netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent:ed3a6a6

It will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=ed3a6a6 make set-agent-image

[msherif1234]

/ok-to-test

[github-actions]

New image:
quay.io/netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent:35e2cc7

It will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=35e2cc7 make set-agent-image

[msherif1234]

/ok-to-test

[github-actions]

New image:
quay.io/netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent:075fb69

It will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=075fb69 make set-agent-image

[openshift-ci-robot]

@msherif1234: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1379 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.15.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

it was noticed with DNS over TCP that the handshake packets are too small and it doesn't contain any DNS data from UI DNS fields showed as n/a which is true

this PR propagate the DNS lookup return code so we can differentiate between cases like TCP handshake case and real errors enriching with DNS info.

when we get N/A bpf_skb_load_bytes() return an error

working
======
"dns_record": {
                       "id": 40514,
                       "flags": 34176,
                       "latency": 185794,
                       "errno": 0,
                       "offset": 68,
                       "tcp_len": 34,
                       "skb_len": 291
                   },

none working
==========
"dns_record": {
                       "id": 0,
                       "flags": 0,
                       "latency": 0,
                       "errno": 7,
                       "offset": 68,
                       "tcp_len": 34,
                       "skb_len": 66
                   },

in the none working case the received packet is very small that is why we can't fetch DNS header info.

Those small packets are TCP handshake and those packets don't have data by definition this clear when u look at the pcap

Dependencies

netobserv/network-observability-console-plugin#425

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

• Will this change affect NetObserv / Network Observability operator? If not, you can ignore the rest of this checklist.
• Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
• Does this PR require product documentation?
• If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
• Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
• If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
• Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
• If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
• QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
• Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
• Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
• No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[msherif1234]

/ok-to-test

[github-actions]

New image:
quay.io/netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent:054faa4

It will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=054faa4 make set-agent-image

[msherif1234]

/ok-to-test

[github-actions]

New image:
quay.io/netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent:138178c

It will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=138178c make set-agent-image

[msherif1234]

/ok-to-test

[github-actions]

New image:
quay.io/netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent:9bed2e9

It will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=9bed2e9 make set-agent-image

[openshift-ci-robot]

@msherif1234: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1379 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.15.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

it was noticed with DNS over TCP that the handshake packets are too small and it doesn't contain any DNS data from UI DNS fields showed as n/a which is true

this PR propagate the DNS lookup return code so we can differentiate between cases like TCP handshake case and real errors enriching with DNS info.

when we get N/A bpf_skb_load_bytes() return an error

working
======
"dns_record": {
                       "id": 40514,
                       "flags": 34176,
                       "latency": 185794,
                       "errno": 0,
                       "offset": 68,
                       "tcp_len": 34,
                       "skb_len": 291
                   },

none working
==========
"dns_record": {
                       "id": 0,
                       "flags": 0,
                       "latency": 0,
                       "errno": 7,
                       "offset": 68,
                       "tcp_len": 34,
                       "skb_len": 66
                   },

in the none working case the received packet is very small that is why we can't fetch DNS header info.

Those small packets are TCP handshake and those packets don't have data by definition this clear when u look at the pcap

Dependencies

netobserv/network-observability-console-plugin#425
netobserv/flowlogs-pipeline#533

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

• Will this change affect NetObserv / Network Observability operator? If not, you can ignore the rest of this checklist.
• Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
• Does this PR require product documentation?
• If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
• Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
• If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
• Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
• If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
• QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
• Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
• Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
• No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[jpinsonneau]

LGTM, just a note for future improvment.
Thanks @msherif1234 !

[jpinsonneau]

As discussed, my concern here is adding unecessary field on non dns related flows.
We agreed to keep it as is for now.

[Amoghrd]

/label qe-approved

[openshift-ci-robot]

@msherif1234: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1379 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.15.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

it was noticed with DNS over TCP that the handshake packets are too small and it doesn't contain any DNS data from UI DNS fields showed as n/a which is true

this PR propagate the DNS lookup return code so we can differentiate between cases like TCP handshake case and real errors enriching with DNS info.

when we get N/A bpf_skb_load_bytes() return an error

working
======
"dns_record": {
                       "id": 40514,
                       "flags": 34176,
                       "latency": 185794,
                       "errno": 0,
                       "offset": 68,
                       "tcp_len": 34,
                       "skb_len": 291
                   },

none working
==========
"dns_record": {
                       "id": 0,
                       "flags": 0,
                       "latency": 0,
                       "errno": 7,
                       "offset": 68,
                       "tcp_len": 34,
                       "skb_len": 66
                   },

in the none working case the received packet is very small that is why we can't fetch DNS header info.

Those small packets are TCP handshake and those packets don't have data by definition this clear when u look at the pcap

Dependencies

netobserv/network-observability-console-plugin#425
netobserv/flowlogs-pipeline#533

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

• Will this change affect NetObserv / Network Observability operator? If not, you can ignore the rest of this checklist.
• Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
• Does this PR require product documentation?
• If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
• Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
• If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
• Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
• If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
• QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
• Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
• Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
• No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[msherif1234]

/approve

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: msherif1234

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [msherif1234]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment